-^ »w~-. 



T 



f55\ 



I LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, 
E 373 



Chap. 
Shelf 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



=2 






THE 



SUBSTANCE OF TWO SPEECHES, 

BELrV'ERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THE SUBJECT OF 

THE MISSOURI BILL. 

] Y THE HONOURABLE RUFUS KING, OF NEW YORK. 



Jamaica (L. /.), J^ov. 22, 1819. 

Conformably to your request in behalf of 
the committee appointed by the late meeting 
in the city, on the business of the Missouri 
Bill, I have the honour to send to you the 
substance of two speeches that I delivered in 
the Senate of the United States, when this 
bill was under its consideration. 

As my notes are imperfect, I may have 
omitted some remarks made on that occasion, 
and added others which were not made ; the 
communication however contains the sub- 
stance of my observations, and present opi- 
nions on this important subject. I am parti- 
cularly anxious not to be misunderstood in 
this case, never having Ihouglit m)'self at li- 
berty to encourage, or to assent to any mea- 
sure that wovild affect the security of pro- 
perty in slaves, or tend to disturb the politi- 
cal adjustment which tlie constitution has 
established respectin;^- them. I desire to be 
considered as still adiiering- to this reserve ; 
and that the observations which I send \ ou 
should be construed to refer, and to be 
confined, to the prohibition of slavery in the 
new states to be formed beyond the original 
limits of the United States — a prohibition, 
which in my judgment Congress has the 
power to cstablisli, and the omission of which 
may, as I fear, be productive of most serious 
consequences. 

With great respect and esteem, 
i have the lionour to be. 
Gentlemen, 

Your most obedient servant, 

KUFUS KING. 



Messrs. John B. Coles, and John T. Irving, 
cliairman and secretary of the committee 
appointed by the late city meeting respect- 
ing the Missouri Bill ' ' 



The Substance of two Speeches on the Missovr ' 
Bid; delivered by Mr. King, in the Senate of 
the United Slates, during their last Session. ■ 

The constitution declares, "that Congress 
shall have power to dispose of, and make all 
needful rules and regulations respecting the 
territory and other property of the United 
States." Under this power Congress has pass- 
ed laws for the survey and sale of the pub- 
lic lands, for the division of the same into se- 
parate territories; and has ordained for each 
of them a constitution, a plan of temporary 
government, whereby the civil and political 
rights of the inhabitants are regulated, and 
the rights of conscience and other natural 
rights are protected. 

The power to make all needful regulations, 
includes the power to determine what regu- 
lations are needful ; and if a regulation pro- 
hibiting slavery within any territory of the 
United States be, as it has been, deemed 
needful. Congress possesses the power to 
make the same, and moreover to pass all 
laws neccssaiy to carry this power into exe- 
cution. 

The territory of Missouri is a portion of 
Louisiana, which was purchased of France, 
and belongs to the United States in full do- 
n"inion ; in the language of the constitution, 
Missouri is their territory, or property, and is 
subject, like other territories of the United 
States, to the regulations and temporary go- 
vernment which has been, or shall be, pre- 
scribed by Congress. The clause of tlie con- 
stitution, which grants this power to Con- 
gress, is so comprehensive and unambiguous, 
and its purpose so manifest, that commentary 
will not render the power, or the object of 
its establishmc-nt, more explicit or plain. 

The constitution farther provides, that 
"new states may be admitted by Congress 
into the union." As this power is conferred 
without limitation, the time, tenns, and cir- 
cumstances of the admission of new states, 

Ij are referred to the discretion of Congress; 

" which may admit new states, but are not 



IIO.V. HL'FCS KLNG'S SPJEClIES 



oblit^d to tlo so: of rigfkt, no new state can 
dci.i.i .tt ailihissiuii ii)to tlie union, unless such 
dcniuiKl be founded uj)on some previous cn- 
gapcme^t of the United States. 

^^'llen uiimittcil by Congress irjto the union, 
whcUier by compact or otiicrwise, tlie new 
BtMte '.iciimcs entitled to tlie enjoyment of 
Uje same rights, and bound to pcrlbrm the 
like duties, as the other states ; :u'd its citi- 
zens \^ill be entitled to all privileges and im- 
mutiitJes of citizens in the several states. 

The citizens i>f each state possess rights, 
and owe duties that are peculiar to, and arise 
out of the constitution and law s of the several 
states. 'Ihcse rights and ilutics difi'er from 
each other in the different states; and among 
these diflcrences, none is so remarkable or 
important as that which proceicls from the 
constitution and laws of the several states re- 
specting slavery — the same being permitted 
in some states, and forbidden in others. 

The (juestion respecting slavery in the old 
thirteen states, had been decided and settled 
before the adoption of the constitution, which 
grants no power to Congress to interfere 
with, or to change, what had been so pre- 
viously settled : the slave states Iheiefore arc 
free to continue or to abolisli slavery. Since 
the year 1808, Congress has possessed power 
to prohibit, and has prohibited, the further 
migration or'importation of slaves into any of 
the old thirteen states, and at all times under 
the constitution has had power to prohibit 
such migration or importation into any of the 
new slates, or territories of the Unilecl States. 
The constitution contains no express provi- 
sions respecting slaven in a new state that 
may be admitted into the union: every regu- 
lation upon this subject, belongs to the power 
whose consent is necessary to the formation 
and admission of such state. Congress may 
therefore make it a condition of the admission 
of a new state, that slavery shall be forever 
prohibited within the same, x We may with 
the more confidence pronounce this to be 
the true construction of the constitution, as 
it has been so amply confirmed by the past 
decisions of Congress. 

Although the articles of confederation were 
drawn uj) and approved by the old f^ongress 
in the \ ear 1777, and soon afterwards were 
ratilieil by some of the state.s, their complete 
ratification did nut take place until the year 
1781. The states which possessed small and 
already settled territorj', withheld their rati- 
fication, in order to obtain from the large 
states a cession to the Ignited States of a por- 
tion of tluir vacant territory. Without en- 
tering into the rexsons on which this demand 
was urged, it is well known that they h:id an 
influence on .Massachusetts, Connecticut, New 
York, and Virginia; which states ceded to the 
L'nite<l Stale* their res()eclive claims to the 
Irrritor)' lying northwest of the river Ohio. 
This cession was made on the express condi- 
tion, that the ceded territory shouM be soM 
for the common benefit of the I'nitetl Stales; 
that It khuuld be laid out into states, and that 
the States so laid out should form distinct re- 



publican states, and be admitted as memberft 
of tlie federal union, having the same rights 
of sovereignty, freedom, aiul independence, 
as the other sUtes. Of the four states which 
made this cession, two permitted, and the 
other two prohibited, slavery. 'Ihc United 
States having in this manner become proprie- 
tors of the e.xtensive territory northwest of 
the river Ohio, although the' considerations 
contained no express provisions upon the 
subject. Congress, the only representation of 
the United States, assumed, as incideut to 
their office, the power to dispose of this ter- 
ritory; and for this purpose, to divide the 
same into distinct states, to provide for the 
temporary government of the inhabitants 
thereof, and for their ultimate admission, as 
new st:ites, into the federal union. 

The ordinance for these purposes, whicl^ 
was passed by Congress in 1787, contains cer- 
tain articles which are called — " Articles of 
compact between the original states, and the 
people and states within the said territory, 
i forever to remain unalterable unless by com- 
mon consent." The si.xth of those unalter- 
able articles provides, " that there shall be 
neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in 
the said territor)'." 

The constitution of the United States sup- 
plies the defect that existed in the articles of 
confederation, and has vested Congress, as 
has been slated, with ample powers on this 
important sul)ject. Accordingly, the ordi- 
nance of 1787, passed by the old Congress, 
was ratified and confirmed by an act of tl\e 
new Congress, during their first session under 
the constitution. 

The state of A'irginia, which ceded to the 
United States her claims to the territory, con- 
sented by her delegates in the old Congress, 
to this ordinance. Not only "N'irginia, but North 
Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, by the 
unanimous votes of their delegates in the old 
Congress, aj)proved of tlie ordinance of 1787, 
by which slavery is forever abolislietl in the 
territory northwest of the river Ohio. AVithout 
the votes of these states, the ordinance could 
not have passed; and there is no recollection 
of an opposition from any of these states, to 
the act oiconfirmation passed tinier the actual 
constitution. Shivery had l.jn^ been estab- 
lished in these states — the evil \\ as felt in their 
institutions, laws, and hal)its, and i-oiild not ea- 
sily or at ((Mcc be abolished. But these votes, 
so honourable to these states, satisfactorily de- 
monstrate their unwillingiiessto permit the ex- 
tension of slavery into the new states which 
might be admitted iiy Congress into the union. 

'i'he stales of Ohio, lndian:i, and Illinois, on 
the northwest of the river Ohio, have been 
ailmilted by Congress into the union, on the 
condition and conlbrmably to the articles of 
compact, contained in the ordinance of 1787, 
and by which it is declared that there shall 
be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude 
in any of the saiil states. 

-Mthougli Congress possess the power of 
making Uie exclusion of slavery a parlor con- 
J'ticn of the act admitting a new stale into 



ON THE mSSOURI BILL. 



the union, they may in special cases, and for 
siiflicient reasons, forbear to exercise tliis 
power. TiuiS Kentucky and Vermont were 
admitted as new states into the union, with- 
out makinjy the abolition of slavery tlie con- 
dition of their athiiission. In ^'crnlont slavery 
never existed; her laws exchidiiif^- the same. 
Kentucky was formed out of, and settled by 
A^irg'inia, and the iii!ia!)itants of Kentucky 
equally witii those of ^'i^^inia, by fair inter- 
pretation of the constitution, were exempt 
from all such interference of Congress, as 
might disturb or impair the security of their 
property in slaves. The western territory 
of North Carolina and Georgia having been 
partially granted and erected under the au- 
thority of these states, before the cession 
thereof to the United States, and these states 
being original parties to the constitution which 
recognizes the existence of slavery, no mea- 
sure restraining slavery could be applied by 
Congress to this territory. But to remove all 
doubts on this head, it was made a condition 
of the cession of this territory to the United 
. States, that the ordinance of 1787, except the 
sixth article thereof, respecting slavery, siiould 
be applied to the same; and that the sixth 
article should not be so applied. According- 
ly, the states of Tennessee, Mississippi, and 
Alabama, comprehending the territory ceded 
to the United States by North CarcJina and 
Georgia, have been admitted, as nev states, 
into the union, without a provision by which 
slavery shall be excluded from the same. 
According to this abstract of the proceedings 
of Congress in the admission of new states 
into the union, of the eight new states with- 
in the original limits of the United States, 
four have been admitted without an article ex- 
cluding slavery; three have been admitted on 
the condition that slavery should be excluded; 
and one admitted without such condition. In 
the four first cases. Congress were restrain- 
ed from exercising the power to exclude 
slavery; in the next three they exercised this 
power; and in the last, it was unnecessary to 
do so, slavery being excluded by the state 
constitution. 

The province of Louisiana, soon after its 
cession to the United States, was divided into 
two territories, comprehending- such parts 
thereof as were contiguous to the river Mis- 
sissippi, being the only parts of the province 
that were inhabited. The foreign language, 
laws, customs and manners of the inhabitants, 
required the immediate and cautious atten- 
tion of Congress, which, instead of extending 
in the first instance to these territories the 
ordinance of 1787, ordained special regula- 
tions for the government of the same. These 
regulations were from time to time revised 
and altered, as observation and experience 
showed to be expedient, and as was deemed 
most Ukely to encourage and promote those, 
changes which would soon qualify the inhabi- 
tants for self government, and admission into 
the union. When the United States took 
possession of the province of Louisiana in 
1804, it was estimated to contain fiftv thou- 



sand white inl)abltant.s, forty thousand slaves, 
and two thousand free persons of colour.* 
More than four-fifths of the whites, and all 
the slaves, except about thirteen hundred, in- 
habited New Orleans and the adjacent terri- 
tory; the residue, consisting of less than ten 
thousand whites, and about thirteen huntlred 
slaves, were ilisj)erscd throughout the coun- 
try now included in the Arkansaw and -Mis- 
souri territories. The greater part of the 
thirteen hundred slaves were in the Missouri 
territory; some of them having been removed 
thither from the old French .settlements on the 
east side of the Mississippi, after the passing 
of the ordinance of 1787, by which slavery in 
those settlements was abolished. 

In 1812, the territory of New Orleans, to 
which the ordinance of 1787, with the excep- 
tion of certain parts thereof, had been pre- 
viously extended, was permitted by Congress 
to form a constitution and state government, 
and admitted as a new state into the union, 
by the name of Louisiana. The acts of Con- 
gress for these purposes, in addition to sun- 
dry important provisions respecting rivers and 
public lands, which are declared to be irrevo- 
cable, unless by common consent, annex other 
terms and conditions whereby it is establish- 
ed, not only that the constitution of Louisiana 
should be republican, but that it should con- 
tain the fundamental principles of religious 
liberty, that it should secure to the citizens 
the trial by jury in all criminal cases, and the 
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, ac- 
cording to the constitution of the United 
States; and after its admission into the union, 
that the laws which Louisiana might pass, 
should be promulgated, its records of every 
description preserved, and its judicial and le- 
gislative proceedings conducted in the lan- 
guage in which the laws and judicial proceed- - 
ings of ilie United States are published and 
coi. luctcd. 

Guards so friendly to the rights of the citi- 
zens and restraints on the state sovereignty 
so material to the gradual confirmation anil 
security of their Uberties, demonstrate the 
extensive and parental power of Congress; 
powers, the wise exercise of which, on this 
occasion, is not confined to the inhabitants of 
the new state, but reaches and protects the 
rights of the citizens of all tlie states. The 
habits of the people, and the number of 
slaves by whom the labour of the territory of 
New Orleans was perfomied, were doubtlessr 
the reason for the omission of an article in 
the act of admission, by which slavery should 
be excluded from the new state. 

Having annexed these new and extraordi- 
nary conditions to the act for the admission 
of Louisiana into the union, Congress mav, if 
they shall deem it expedient, annex the like 
conditions to the act for the admission of 

* This estimate was too high, as by the 
census ofl&lO, the whole province was found 
to contain only 97,000 inhabitants, viz. 51,000 
whites, 37,000 slaves, 8,000 free persons gf 
colotir. 



1 



HON. RUFUS KING'S SPEECHES 



MiiKuuri; ami, moreover, as in the case of 
Ohio, Indiana ami Illinois, provide, by .m arti- 
cle for ihat purpose, that slavery shall not 
exist ^villiin the same. 

Admitlinj^ this construction of the constitu- 
tion, it is alle^'ed that the power by which 
lonfjTcss excluded slavery from the states 
northwest of the river Oiiio, is suspended in 
respect to the states that may be formed in 
the province of Louisiana. The article of the 
treaty i-eferred to declares: "That the inha- 
bitants of the territon shall be incorporated 
in the I'nitetl States, and admitted as soon as 
possible, acconiinp: to the principles of the 
federal constitution, to the enjoyment of all 
rights, advantages and immunities of citi/cns 
of the United States; and, in the mean time, 
they shall be maintained and protected in the 
free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and 
the religion which tliey profess." 

Althou{fh there is a want of precision in the 
article, its scope and meaning cannot be mis- 
understood. It constitutes a stipulation by 
which tlie United States engage that the in- 
liabitai\ts of Louisiana should be formed into 
a state or states, and xs soon as the provisions 
of the constitution permit, that they shall be 
admitted as new states into the union, on the 
tooting of llje other states ; and before sucli 
admission, and during their territorial govern- 
ment, that tlicy shall be maintained and pro- 
lectc<l by Congress in the enjoyment of their 
liberty, property, and religion. The first 
clause of tins stipulation will be executed by 
the admission of Missouri as a new state into 
the union, as such admission will impart to 
the inhabitants of Missouri "all the rights, 
advantages and immunities," which citizens 
of the United States derive from the consti- 
tution tin leof These rights may be denomi- 
nated federal rights, are uniform throughout 
the union, and arc connnon to all its citizens. 
Hut the rights derived from the conititution 
and laws of the states, wliich may be denomi- 
nated state rights, in many particulars diller 
tmm each other. Thus, while the federal 
rights of the citizens of Massachusetts and 
Virginia are the same, their state rights are 
however dissimilar, slavery being forbidden 
ill one, and permitted in the other state. This 
dillerence arises out of the constitutions and 
laws of the two states, in the same manner as 
the difference in the rights of tiie citizens of 
these »tates to vote for representatives in 
Congress arises out of the state laws and con- 
stitution. In .Ma-ssachusetts, every person of 
lawful age, and possessing property, of any 
bort, of the value of two hundred dollars, ma\ 
voti; for reiiresentalivcs to (Jonpress. In \\v- 
fpnia, no ])en>on can vote fof representatives 
to Congress unless he he a freeholder. As 
the admiiwion of a new state into the union 
confeni upon its citizens only the rights deno- 
• lc<lenl. and as these are common to 
I OH of all the states, as well of lliose 
ill vkhicli hla\cry is |in>hil)ited, as of those in 
wITkIi it is allowed, it follows that the prohi- 
bition of nUvrr)' in Missouri will not impair 
the fcdcml rights of its citizens, and that such 



prohibition is not restrained by the clause of 
the treaty which has been cited. 

'I'he remaining clause of the article is ex- 
pressly confined to the period of the territo- 
rial government of Missouri, to the time be- 
tween the first occupation of the country by 
the United States, and its admission as a new 
state into the union. Whatever may be its 
import, it has no reference nor application to 
the terms of the admission, or to the condi- 
tion of Missoin-i after it shall have been admit- 
ted into the union. The clatise is but the 
common formida of treaties, by which inha- 
bited territories arc passed from one sovereign 
to another; its object is to secure .such inha- 
bitants the permanent or temporary enjoy- 
ment of their former liberties, property, 
and religion; leaving to the new sovereign 
full power to make .such, regulations respect- 
ing the same, as may be thought expedient, 
pro\ ided these regulations be not incompati- 
ble with the stipulated security. 

What were the liberties under the French 
government, the enjo\ mcnt of which under 
ours called for protection, we are unable to 
explain; as the United States have no power 
to prevent the free enjoyment of the Catho- 
lic religion, no stipulation against their inter- 
ference to disturb it could be necessary ; and 
the only part of the clause whose o'oject can 
be readily understood is that relative to 
" property." 

As all nations do not permit sK-wery, the 
term property, in its common and universal 
meaning, does not include or describe slaves. 
In treaties therefore between nations, and 
especially in those of the United States, 
whenever stipulations respecting slaves were 
to be made, tlic word " negroes," or " slaves," 
have been employed, and the omission of 
these words in this clause, increases the un- 
certainty whether by the term property, 
sfiives were intended to be excluded. But 
admitting that such was the intention of the 
parties, the stipulation is not only temporary, 
but extends no further than the property ac- 
ttially possessed by the inhabitants of Mis- 
souri, when it was first occupied by tlie 
United States. Property since acquired by 
them, and ]>r(ipcrfy ac([uired or possessed by 
the new inliabitaiits of Missouri, has in each 
case been accpiircd under the laws of the 
U'nited States, and not during and under the 
laws of the province of Louisiana. Should 
therefore the future introduction of slaves 
into Missouri be forbidden, the feelings of the 
citizens would soon become reconciled to 
tlieir exclusion, and the inconsiderable num- 
ber of sla\ts owned by the inliahitants :it the 
date «)»' tile cession of Louisi:ina would \c 
emancipated or sent for sale into slates where 
slavery exists. 

It is further objected, that the article of 
the act of admission into the union, by which 
slavery should be exehideil from Missouri, 
would be nugatory, as ihc new state in virtue 
of its sovereignly would be at liberty to re- 
voke its consent, and annul the article hv 
which slavcrv should be excluded. 



ON THE MISSOURI BILL. 



.•> 



Such revocation wcjiild be contrary to the 
obligations of good tuitli, whicli enjoins the 
observance of our engaj^emcnts — it would be 
repugnant to the principles upon which go- 
vernment Itself is founded. Sovereignty in 
every lawful government is a limited power, 
and can do oidy what it is lawful to do — sove- 
reigns, like individuals, are bound by their 
engagements, and have no moral power to 
break them. Treaties between nations re- 
pose on this principle. If the new state can 
revoke and annul an article construq>ted be- 
tween itself and tiie United States, by which 
slavery is excluded from it, it may revoke and 
annul any other article of the compact ; it 
may, for example, annul the article respect- 
ing public lands, and in virtue of its sove- 
reignty, assume the right to tax and to sell 
the lands of the United Siates. 

There is yet a more satisfactory answer to 
this objection. The judicial power of the 
United States is coextensive with their legis- 
lative power, and every question arising un- 
der the constitution or laws of the United 
States, is cognizable b)' tlie judiciary thereof. 
Should the new state rescind any of the arti- 
cles of compact contained in the act of ad- 
mission into the union, that, for example, by 
which slavery is excluded ; and should pass a 
law authorizing slavery, the judiciary of the 
United States, on proper application, would 
immediately deliver from bondage, any per- 
son detained as a slave in said state ; and in 
like manner, in all instances affecting indivi- 
duals, the judiciary might be employed to de- 
feat every attempt to violate the constitution 
and laws of the United States. 

If Congress possess the power to exclude 
slavery from Missouri, it still remains to be 
shown that they ought to do so. The exami- 
nation of this branch of the subject, for ob- 
vious reasons, is attended with peculiar diffi- 
culty, and cannot be made without passing 
over arguments which to some of us might 
appear to be decisive, but the use of which, 
in this place, would call up feehngs, the in- 
, fluence of which would disturb, if not defeat, 
the impartial consideration of the subject. 

Slavery unhappily exists within the United 
States. Enlightened men in the states where 
it is permitted, and every one out of them, 
x-egret its existence among us, and seek for 
the means of limiting and of mitigating it. 
The first introduction of slaves is not imputa- 
ble to the present generation, nor even to 
their ancestors. Before the year 1642, the 
trade and ports of the colonies were open to 
foreigners equally as those of the mother 
country, and as early as 1620, a few years only 
after the planting of the colony of Virginia, 
and the same year in which the first settle- 
ment was made in the old colony of Ply- 
mouth, a cargo of negroes was brought into 
and sold as slaves in Virginia by a foreign 
ship.* From this beginning the importation 
of slaves was continued for nearly two centu- 
ries. To her honour, Virginia, while a colony. 



* Sliih's History of Virginia. 



opposed the importation of slaves, and svm 
the first state to prohibit the same, by a law 
pas^icd for this purpose in 1773, thirty years 
befi)re the general prohibition enacted by 
Congress in 1808. The laws and cii.stonis jf 
the states in which slavery has existed for so 
long a period, mu.st liave had their influence 
on the opinions and hal)its of tlK: citizens, 
which ought not to be disregarded on the 
present occasion. 

Omitting therefore the arguments which 
might be urged, and which by all of us might 
be deemed conclusive, were this an original 
question, the reasons which shall be offered 
in favour of the interposition of the power of 
Congress to exclude slaveiy from Missouri, 
shall be only such as respect the common de- 
fence, the general welfare, and that wise ad- 
ministration of the government, which as far 
as possible may produce the impartial distri- 
bution of benefits and burdens throughout the 
union. 

By the articles of confederation, tlie com- 
mon treasury was to be supplied by the .se- 
veral states according to the value of the 
lands, with the houses and improvemciits 
thereon, within the respective states. From 
the difficulty in making this valuation, the old 
Congress were unable to apportion the requi- 
sition for the supply of the general trcasun', 
and obliged the states to propose an altera- 
tion of the articles of confederation, by which 
the whole number of free persons, with three - 
fifths of the slaves, contained in the respec- 
tive states, should become the rule of such 
apportionment of the taxes. A majority of 
the states approved of this alteration, but 
some of them disagreed to the same ; and 
for want of a practicable ride of apportion- 
ment, the whole of the requisitions of taxes 
made by Congress during the revolutionary 
war, and afterwards, up to the establishment 
of the constitution of the United States, were 
merely provisional, and subject to revisioa 
and correction as soon as such rules should 
be adopted. The several states were credited 
for their supplies, and charged for the ad- 
vances made to them by Congress; but no 
settlement of their accounts could be made, 
for the want of a rule of appoilionment, un- 
til the establishment of the constitution. 

"When the general convention that formed 
the constitution took this suliject into their 
consideration, the whole question was once 
more examined, and while it was agreed that 
all contributions to the common treasur}' 
should be made according to the ability of llie 
several states to furnish tlie same, the old dif- 
ficulty recurred in agreeing upon a rule 
whereby such ability should be ascertained, 
there being no simple standard by which the 
ability of individuals to pay taxes can be 
ascertained. A diversity' in the selection of 
taxes has been deemed requisite to their 
equalization. Between communities, this dif- 
ficulty is less considerable, and although the 
rule of relative members would not accu- 
rately measure the relative wealth of nations, 
in states in the circumstances of the United 



HON. KL'FLS KtNG'S Sl'EECnES 



SMea^ whote institutions, laws, and cmploy- 
nirnts, are so iniicli alike, tlie rule of number 
is probably as nt-arly ei|uul im any «»i1ict sim- 
ple and pradiciblc rule can be exjjcctcil to 
be (tliouf,'li bel\vi-en the old and new stateb 
its eipiitv IS dt-rectixc): tlicse considerations, 
aiided to tlie approbation \\lii«;li bad already 
been given to the rule, by a niajorily of the 
htates, induced tJie convention to af^ree, that 
direct taxes should be apportioned anionji^ the 
st:ites. according to the whole number of free 
pcrxnus, :ind three-fifths of the slaves which 
they nii^lit res|>ecti\ely contain. 

The rule for the ajiportionnient of taxes, is 
not necessarily the most equitable rule for 
the apportionment of representatives among 
the states ; — ()roperty nuisl not be disregartl- 
td in the composition of the first rule, but 
frequently is overlooked in the establishment 
of the scconil; u rule wiiicii mi;fht be ap- 
proved in respect to taxes, would be disap- 
jjfoved in respect to representatives, as one in- 
dividual possessing twice as much properly 
as anollier, might be required to p:n' double 
Uic taxes of such other; but no man has two 
votes to another's one; rich or j)oor, each 
L:is but a single vote in Uie choice of repre- 
sentatives. 

In the dispute between England and the 
colonies, tlie latter denied the right of the 
former to tax them, because thc}' were not 
represented in the English parliament. They 
contended, that according to the law of the 
land, taxation and representation were inse- 
parable. Tlie nile of taxation being agreed 
upon by the convention, it is possible that the 
maxim with which we succcssfally ojiposed 
the claim of England, may have had an influ- 
ence in procuring the adoption of the same 
rule for tiie apportionment of representatives ; 
the true meaning, however, of this principle 
of the English constitution, is, thai a colony 
or district is not to be taxed wliich is not re- 
prfsented ; not ihal its number of represen- 
tatives shall be ascertained by its (juota of 
taxes If three-fifths of the slaves are virtually 
represented, or their o\\ ners obtain a dispro- 
portionate po\*cr in legislation, ami in the 
api>oinlm( III of the President of the United 
>stute», why should not /jther [property he 
virtually represented, and its owners obtain 
tL like poMcr in legislation, :tnd in the choice 
of the president .'' Property is not confined 
to slaves, but exists in liouses, stores, ships, 
capital in tnule, and manufactures. 'I'o se- 
cure to the ownen of properly in slaves, 
yrrnXvT political power than is allowed to the 
IS of cither and ecpiivalcnt prop<rly, 
• ■!•■* to be contrary to our iheor) of the 
e(|iialily of personul rights, inasmuch as the 
citi/cni of itonie states thereby become enti- 
tled to other and greater political ptiwer 
than the 1 "I" oiJicr stutes. The present 

hoii'-r of ..'.ttivcs C(jiisist8 of one liuii- 

• '. ly-oiic members, which are ap- 

)' . 'iig the Mtates in a ratio of one 

reprmrntaiivc lor ever) thirty-five thouiuind 
federal nirniberv, which arc ascertained by 
adding to die whok imiiibcr of free pcrsont, 



three-fifths of the slaves. According lo the 
last census, the wiiole number of slaves with- 
in the L'nited States was 1,191,364, which en- 
titled the states possessing the same, to twenty 
represeiitutives, and tweiil)' j)residentiul elec- 
tors more than they would be entitled to, 
were the slaves excluded. Hy the last census, 
Virginia contained 582,104 free persons, and 
392,518 slaves. In an_\ of the slates where 
slavery is excluded, 582,104 free persons 
would be entitled to elect only sixteen repre- 
sentatives; while in ^'irginia, 582,104 free 
persons, by the addition of ihree-fifths of her 
slaves, become entitled to elect, and do ii\ 
fact elect, twenty-three representatives, be- 
ing seven additional ones on account of her 
slaves. Thus, while 35,000 free persons arc 
requisite to elect one representative in a state 
where slavery is prohilntc-d, 25,559 free per- 
sons in Virginia, may and do elect a repre- 
sentative — so that five free persons in Virgi- 
nia, have as much power in the choice of re- 
presentytives to Congress, and in the ap" 
l)ointmcnl of presidential electors, as seven 
free per.sons in any of the states in wliich 
slavery does not exist. 

This inequality in the apportionment of 
representatives was not misunderstood at the 
adoption of the constitution — but as no one 
anticipated the fact that the whole of the 
revenue of the L'nited States would be de- 
rived from indirect taxes, (which cannot be 
su|)posed to spread themselves over the se- 
veral states according to the rule for the ap- 
portionment of direct taxes,) it was be- 
lieved that a part of the contribution to the 
common treasury, would be ai^portioncd 
among the states by the rule for the appor- 
lionmenl of re])rcsentalives. The states in 
which slavery is prohibited, ultimately, though 
with reluctance, acquiesced in the dispropor- 
tionate muiiber of representatives and electors 
that was secured to the slave holding states; 
the concession was, at the time, believed to 
be a great one, and has proved to have beei\ 
the greatest which was made to secure the 
adoption of the constitution. 

Great, however, as this concession was, it 
was definite, and its full extent was compre- 
hended. It w as a settlement between the origi- 
nal thirteen states. The considerations arising" 
out of their actual condition, their past con- 
nexion, and the obligation which all felt to 
promote a refomiation in the federal govern- 
ment, were peculiar to the time and to the 
parties, and are not applicable to the new 
states, w hich Congress may now be willing to 
admit into the union. 

Tlie e(pialily of rights, which includes an 
equality of burdens, is a vital principle in our 
theory of government, and its jealous preser- 
vation is the best security of public and indi- 
vidual frceduni; the departure from ihispiin- 
eiple in the <lisproportionate power and influ- 
ence, allowed to the slave holding slates, was 
a necessary .saciifice to the eslahlishment of 
the constitution. The eflect of this conces- 
sion lui heiii obvious in the preponderance 
v.uicb it has given lo the slave holding .slate. 



ON THE M[SSOURI lULL. 



over tlie other states. Nevertheless, it is an 
ancient settlement, and faith and honour stand 
pledged not to disturb it. But the extension 
of this disproportionate power to the new 
states would be unjust and odious. The states 
whose power would be abridged, and whost.- 
burdens would be increased by the measure, 
cannot be expected to consent to it ; and we 
may hope that the other states are too mag- 
nanimous to insist on it. 

The existence of slavery impairs the indus- 
try and the power of a nation; and it does so 
in proportion to the multiplication of its 
slaves: where the manual labour of a country 
is performed by slaves, labour dishonours the 
bands of freemen. 

If her labourers be slaves, Missouri may be 
able to pay money taxes, but will be unable 
to raise soldiers, or to recruit seamen ; and 
experience seems to have proved that manu- 
factures do not prosper where the artificers 
are slaves. In case of foreign war or domes- 
tic insurrection, misfortunes from whicii no 
states are exempt, and against which all should 
be seasonably prepared, slaves not only do 
not add to, but diminish the faculty of self 
defence ; instead of increasing the public 
strength, they lessen it, by the whole num- 
ber of free persons whose place they occupy, 
increased by the number of freemen that may 
be employed as guards over them. 

The motives for the admission of new states 
into the union, ai-e the extension of the prin- 
ciples of our free government, the equalizing 
of the public bm-dens, and the consolidation 
of the power of the confederated nation. Un- 
less these objects be promoted by the admis- 
sion of new states, no such admission can be 
expedient or justified. 

The states in which slavery already exists, 
are contiguous to each other; they are also 
the portion of the United States nearest to 
the ?>uropean colonies in the West Indies ; 
colonies whose future condition can hardly 
be regarded as problematical. If Missouri, 
and the other states that may be formed to 
the west of the river Mississippi, are permit- 
ted to introduce and establish slavery, the re- 
pose, if not the security, of the union may be 
endangered; all the states south of the inver 
Ohio and west of Pennsylvania and Delaware, 
will be peopled with slaves, and the establish- 
ment of new states west of the river Missis- 
sippi, will serve to extend slavery instead of 
freedom over that boundless reaion. 

Such increase of the states, whatever other 
interests it may promote, will be sure to add 
nothing to the security of the public liberties, 
and can hardly fail hereafter to require and 
produce a change in our government. 

On the other hand, if slavery be excluded 
from Missouri, and the other new states which 
may be formed in this quarter, not only will 
the slave markets be broken up, and the prin- 
ciples of freedom be extended and strength- 
ened, but an exposed and important frontier 
will present a barrier, which will check and 
keep back foreign assailants, who may be as 
brave, and, as we hope, will be as free as our- 



selves. Surrounded in this manner by con- 
nected bodies of freemen, the states where 
slavery is allowed, will be made more secure 
against domestic insurrection, and less liable 
to be aflcctcd by wliat may take place in the 
neighbouring colonies. 

It ought not to be forgotten, that the first 
and main object of the negotiation which led 
to the accpiisition of Louisiana, was the free 
navigation of the Mississippi ; a river that 
forms the sole passage from the western states 
to the ocean. This navigation, although of 
general benefit, has been always valued and 
desired, as of peculiar advantage to the west- 
ern states; whose demands to obtain it, were 
neither equivocal or unreasonable. But with 
the river Mississippi, by a sort of coercion, 
we acquired, by good or ill fortiuie, as our fu- 
ture mea;;ures shall determine, the whole pro- 
vince of Louisiana. As this acquisition was 
made at the common expense, it is very fairly 
urged that the advantages to be derived from 
it should also be common. This it is said will 
not happen, if slaver}' be excluded from Mis- 
souri, as the citizens of states where slavery 
is permitted will be shut out, and none but 
citizens of states where slavery is prohibited 
can become inhabitants of Missouri. 

But this consequence will not arise from 
the proposed exclusion of slavery : the citi- 
zens of states in which slavery is allowed, 
like all other citizens, will be free to become 
inhabitants of the Missouri, in like manner as 
they have become inhabitants of Ohio, India- 
na, and Illinois, in which slavery is forbidden. 
The exclusion of slaves from Missouri, will not 
therefore operate unequally among the citi- 
zens of the United States. The constitution 
provides, " that the citizens of each state shall 
be entitled to enjoy all the rights and immu- 
nities of citizens of the several states" — ever}' 
citizen may therefore remove from one to 
another state, and there enjoy the riglits and 
immunities of its citizens. The proposed 
provision excludes slaves, not citizens, whose 
rights it will not, and cannot impair. 

Besides, there is nothing new or pecuhar 
in a provision for the exclusion of slavery : it 
has been established in the states northwest 
of the river Ohio, and has existed from the 
beginning in the old states where slavery is 
forbidden. The citizens of states where slave- 
ry is allowed, may become inhabitants of Mis- 
souri, but cannot hold slaves there, or in any 
other state where slavery is prohibited. As 
well might the laws prohibiting slavery in the 
old states become the subject of complaint, 
as the proposed exclusion of slavery in the 
Missouri ; but there is no foundation for such 
complaint in either case. It is further urged, 
that the admission of slaves into Missouri 
would be limited to the slaves who are already 
within the United States; that their health 
and comfort would be promoted by their dis- 
persion, and that their numbers would be the 
same, whether they remained confined to the 
states where slavery exists, or are dispersed 
over the new states that may be admitted into 
the union. 



HON. RLFUS KING'S SPEECHES, kc. 



Tbat none but domestic slaves would be 

• ' \ into Missouri, and the other new 

• r states, is most fully disproved by 

tbc lliuii»»nds of fresh slaves which, in \\o\a- 

tion of our l:»\vs, arc annually imported into 

\. . .lUia, IxiuisiaiwL, and MisMssippi. 

\'> c may renew our clloils, and enact new 
iws with heavier penalties, ajjainst the im- 
i;urtaiion of slaves; the revenue cutlers may 
more tlilijjently watch our shores, and the 
naval force may be employed on the <-oast of 
Africa and on the ocean, to break up the sla\ e 
trade— but these means will not put an end 
to it : so long as markets are open for the pur- 
chase of slaves, so long tliey will be supplied ; 
aiid »o lonjc as we permit the existence of ] 
jJavery in our new an<l frontier states, so long 
«l»ve markets will exist. The plea of liuma- 
nity is eiiually inadmissible; since no one, 
^»lio has ever witnessed the experiment, will 
believe that the condition of slaves is made 
better by the breaking up and sepapiion of 
iheir families, nor by their removal from the 
old states to the new ones; and the objection 
to the pro\ision of the bill, excluding slavery 
from Missouri, is e(|ually applicable to tiie like 
prohibition of the old states; these should be 
revoked, in order that the slaves, now con- 
fined to certain stales, may, for their health, 
and comfort, and multiplication, be spread 
o>cr the whole union. 

That the comlltion of slaves within the 
I'nlted States has been improved, and the ri- 
fiours of sbvery mitigated by the establis'n- 
.lent and progress of our free governments, 
3 a fact that imparls consolation to all who 
have taken pains to incjuire concerning it. 
The disproportionate increase of free persons 
of colour, can be explained only by the sup- 
position, that the practice of emancipation is 
gaining ground; a practice which there is 
reason to believe would become more gene- 
r.u, if a plan could be devised by which the 
comforts and morals of the emancipated 
slaves could be satisfactorily provided for. 
for it is not to be doubted that public opi- 
nion ever) where, and especially in tlie oldest 
sute of the union, is less favourable than for- 
n- rly to the txisUiice of slavery, tienerous 
III eidightened men, in the states where 
slavery exists, have discovered much solici- 
tude on the subject; a desire has been mani- 
kstcd that emancipation might be encouraged 
by the ('Stablishnit.nt of a ]<lace or colony, 
without the I'nited States, to which free per- 
sonn of Cfilour might be removed; and great 
cHortit for that iiurpose are making w ilh cor- 
rcnponding anxiety for their success. Those 
pcriotis, liuuiane and enlightened as ihcy are 
known to be, surely will be unwilling to pro- 
mote the removal of the slaves from the old 
■tate* to the new oms, where their contforts 
will not be niidti|>lied, and where tlteir fet- 
ter* nia) be rivetted forever. 

hbvcry caimot exist in Missouri without 
llic content of Cungress; the (|uestion may, 
Uiercforc, be considered, in certain lights, :m 
» new one, i' ' *! If first itistance in which 

an iucjuiry u ,,' slavery, in a case so 



free from the influence of t!ic ancient laws, 
iLsages and ntanners of the country, has come 
before the Senate. 

The territory of Missouri is beyond our an- 
cient limits, and the inquiry whellier slavery 
shall exist there, is open to many of the ar- 
guments that might be employed, had slavery 
never existed within the United States. It is 
a question of no ordinary importance. Free- 
dom and slavery are the parlies which stand 
this day before the Senate ; and upon its de- 
cision the empire of the one or the other 
will be established in the new state which we 
arc about to admit into the union. 

If slavery be permitted in Missouri, with 
tlie climate, and sod, and in the circum- 
stances of this territory, what hopes can be 
entertained that it will ever be prohibited in 
any of the new states that will be formed in 
the immense region west of the Mississippi. 
Will the co-extensive establishment of slavery 
and of new states throughout this region, les- 
sen the danger of domestic insurrcclion, or 
of foreign aggression? AVill this maimer of 
executing the great trust of admitting new 
states into the union, contribute to assimilate 
our manners and usages, to increase our mu- 
tual aiVection and confidence, and to establish 
that equality of benefits and burdens, which 
constitutes the true basis of our strength and 
union P AVill the militia of the natioii, which 
must furnish our soldiers and seamen, increase 
as slaves increase P Will the actual dispropor- 
tion in the military service of the nation be 
thereby diminished; ix disproportion that will 
be, as it has been, readily borne, as between 
ihe original stalej, because it arises out of 
their comjiact of union, but which may be- 
come a badge cf inferiority, if required for 
the provection of those who, being free to 
choose, i)ersist in the establishment of max- 
ims, the inevitable effect of which will de- 
prive them of the power to contribute to the 
common defence, and even of the ability to 
protect themselves? There arc limits within 
\t hich our federal system must stop ; no one 
has supjiosed that it could be indefinitely ex- 
tended — we are now about to pass our origi- 
nal boundary; if this can be done without af- 
fecting iho princijjles of our free governinent, 
it can be accomplished only by the most vigi- 
huit attention to plant, cherish and sustain the 
principles of liberty in the new states that 
may be formed beyond our ancient limits: 
with our utmost cauti<m in this respect, it 
may slill be justly apprehended, that the ge- 
neral government must be made stronger as 
we become more extended. 

Hut if, instead of freedom, slavery is to pre- 
vail, and spread, as we extend otir dominion, 
can any reflecting m;ui fail to see the neces- 
sity of giving to the general government 
greater jjowers, to enable it to aftord the pro- 
tection that will be demanded of it; powers 
that will be dilKcult to control, and which 
may prove fatal to the pul)lic liberties? 



Clark U Jiascr, Printcra. 



I 



\ 



^■'■w 



